That atheists believe that they are an extremely logical life-form is hardly surprising. Atheists are not the only ones, however, who are under this impression. A great many theists, who underestimate their own logical abilities (often justifiably so) are also grudgingly in awe of the atheists. They therefore think it best to avoid atheists for fear of being trod on by their logical juggernaut.
This complacency (or overestimation of the potency of tools at their disposal to defend their world view) on the part of the atheist, as well as the theist’s wariness of the prospect of matching wits with the atheist are grossly misplaced, which is what I propose to demonstrate in what follows. Instead of focusing on minor logical errors (who among us is immune to those?), I intend to highlight the fundamental logical flaw in the typical atheist’s reasoning. In other words, instead of looking to stack up an inventory of logical errors in his logical superstructure, I propose to dig up the soil to show the absence of any logical foundation under it.
My motivation for doing so is twofold. One, to assure the theist that he need not be intimidated by the atheist– at any rate of the run-of-the-mill type that employs manifestly faulty reasoning. Two, to point out to the atheist of this ilk that his high estimation of his own intellect is unwarranted on account of his thought-process leaving a great deal to be desired. That his arguments are unbecoming of any intelligent and self-respecting human being and that therefore he would be well-advised to replace them with better ones or (failing that) to revise his position.
It is one thing to be wrong on a given issue (we all are at one time or another). It is much less pardonable when one is guilty of selective and convenient application of abstract principles to concrete issues; that is, when the implications of those principles are not consistent. Especially when there is a thinly-disguised method to the apparent madness, this type of inconsistency becomes criminal.
I am convinced that not all atheists knowingly employ faulty arguments in support of their preferred conclusions. While there is no denying that such specimens do exist, many atheists sincerely believe that theirs are what are referred to as clinching arguments. I would like this piece to benefit such atheists as well, by nudging them to reconsider their arguments which, due to sheer force of habit, they have never subjected to critical scrutiny.
Whether deliberately or unwittingly, the first trick employed by the atheist is that, very early in any debate with the theist, he makes it a point to establish that the burden of proof rests with the theist, to which the theist usually acquiesces to his detriment. ‘You make the claim that God exists,’ the atheist says. ‘It follows therefore that it is you that needs to back it up with evidence,’ he concludes. And having thus successfully thrown the ball into the court of the theist, he looks around triumphantly as if the debate has been settled in his favour once for all.
Almost as a knee-jerk reaction, the theist then proceeds to try and logically ‘prove’ the existence of God– a foolish project to begin with if ever there was one, for reasons that we do not need to go into here. He gives one evidence after the other (all of them faulty), all of which the atheist successfully dismisses as not good enough. In his desperation the theist forgets to stop digging, sinking deeper and deeper into the depths of defeat and humiliation. The atheist keeps smiling, enjoying the theist’s sorry plight and his own spectacular victory.
It never occurs to the theist to challenge the original assumption regarding the onus of proof. The fact of the matter is that atheism (there is no God) is as much an assertion as is theism (there is God). If it is pointed out to him that he is making every bit as positive a claim as the theist is, he is apt to revise his stance and say that he is not making the claim that there is no God but is merely rejecting the theist’s claim to the contrary on account of lack of convincing evidence. (If you ask the atheist what kind of evidence is convincing enough for him, his response is apt to be educational like few things can be. That story, however, is for another day.)
As it happens, this softened stance of the atheist does scarcely better in the face of objective scrutiny than his original one. The atheist makes a great deal out of his proclaimed mantra that no knowledge claim is acceptable unless it can be proved. The problem with this ‘guiding principle’ is that it destroys itself the moment it is applied to itself. For nobody has ever proved it; nor can it ever be proved. But it gets even worse for the atheist. For while he presents it as the reason why he rejects belief in God; he is not consistent in applying this motto across the board.
The existence of the physical world (as opposed to it being merely his dream) and the distinction between moral good and bad are beliefs that he should similarly reject if he is consistent. But he rejects neither, despite there being no demonstrable proofs in their favour, or those that render their alternatives impossible.
It is one thing to be wrong on a given issue (we all are at one time or another). It is much less pardonable when one is guilty of selective and convenient application of abstract principles to concrete issues; that is, when the implications of those principles are not consistent. Especially when there is a thinly-disguised method to the apparent madness, this type of inconsistency becomes criminal.
